Hi Steve,

Your essay questions the most fundamental foundation of physics. Forcing phenomena to be local by fiat or axiom or just plain unconsciousness, should be reconsidered.

I did have some trouble with the concept of "properties at a point".....what properties?

The following caught my attention" "it has proven difficult to construct a testable and sensible quantum theory of gravity, suggesting that the relation between gravitation and quantum phenomena might be di§erent from anything heretofore explored."

I did not write my essay to probe the classical-quantum link, but it turned out that way. The classical limit as to "mass increase with velocity" is nicely explained via unexpected limits imposed by quantum phenomena. Take a look at: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1403 ..........I believe it relates to your point above.

Thanks for your essay,

Don L.

    Thank you, Yuri. I simply meant that the idea I am proposing doesn't involve faster than light influences.

    Steve

    Thanks for the comment, Shawn. How is the zero of the potential determined, in your model?

    Steve

    Hi Anton,

    I'm simply trying to make the point that the sort of nonlocality I'm talking about is compatible with relativity. There are certainly other perspectives in which relativity is taken to be merely phenomenological (e.g., in deBroglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory), or in which it is understood in non-standard fashion (e.g. DSR: doubly-special relativity). I think that the main thing any theory needs to account for is the invariance of Maxwell's equations under Lorentz transformations.

    Steve

    Thanks, Michael! I'm glad you pointed that out. Your model is an excellent example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, and I wish I'd included a reference in my essay.

    Steve

    Thank you, George. I had not thought about the connection with your top-down causation ideas, but am now going to delve back in and refamiliarize myself. I've referenced your work many times, but not (yet) in this context!

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    • Post #19

    Not only faster than light, as well as slower than light.

    I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. I did take a look at yours, and I would say that one of the reasons people may not have commented is that it seems largely metaphorical, and so it is not clear exactly whether and how current fundamental assumptions in mainstream physics are implicated.

    By "properties at a point", I mean things like the values of the electric and magnetic fields at a point in space (at a given time). Particle properties are more obviously "point" properties, because particles are by localized, pointlike objects to begin with.

    Hope that makes sense.

    Dear Steve,

    very interesting essay. The role of nonlocality especially in quantum mechanics troubles me also for a long time. I always thought that a solution has a strong connection to the spacetime structure.

    I studied very intesive the theory of manifolds (differential topology). Two linked curves in a 3-space are also a non-local phenomenon: the properties of the two curves are strongly influenced by the linking. Some of these non-local properties are discussed in my essay (but with a stronger focus to quantum gravity)

    Best

    Torsten

    PS: I have to read your essay once again.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #25

      Glad you like the essay. Could you be more specific about entanglement? There's a sense in which a theory with a nonlocal constraint inevitably demonstrates entangelment, but there's no speed of entanglement.

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      • Post #26

      Thanks, Torsten, I'l check out your essay!

      Steve

      • [deleted]

      • Post #27

      Superdeterminism and free will not contradicted itch other.

      As Yakir Aharonov's says: "...is somewhat Talmudic: everything you're going to do is already known to God, but you still have the choice." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/03/can-the-future-affect-the-past

      See also my essay 1413

      Dear Steve:

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

      it explains the whome idea.

      Wilhelmus

      Hi, an addendum:

      you state "there are correlations between spatially separate degrees of freedom," This occurs at the lower levels of structure because of the relations that exist at higher levels in the hierarchy of structure. At least that's one way of describing it.

      George

      • [deleted]

      • Post #30

      Dear Steven,

      great piece of paper, easy to anticipate and to read, but nonetheless well-elaborated. Partly very speculative, nonetheless your approach is surely fully worth to be followed further. My own essay here gives a somewhat similar picture of the puzzles in QM. If you like, check it out. It is speculative too, but i think it's consistent with the known facts. I in any way would be happy about a comment for my QM-interpretation from a professional, be it critics or other statements.

      All the best,

      Stefan

      • [deleted]

      • Post #31

      Dear Steve

      What is your attitude to Gerard 't Hooft

      Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings ?

      arXiv:1207.3612 (replaced) [pdf, ps, other]